Mohammed v West London County Court

Judicial review is a residual supervisory jurisdiction, not an appeal on the merits from a County Court. Tenancy and possession disputes, including monetary counterclaims, should ordinarily be dealt with in the County Court. Where Parliament has provided an adequate system for reviewing district judges’ decisions, the High Court should not undertake a further merits review. A section 21 notice is not displaced by the existence of a valid monetary counterclaim. Permission should be refused where no arguable ground or real prospect of relief is shown.

The appellant, a tenant, challenged possession proceedings and her eviction by her landlord. She alleged breaches of the tenancy arrangement, invalidity of the tenancy, mistreatment, property damage and distress. She sought judicial review and a stay of proceedings in the Central London and West London County Courts while a monetary counterclaim remained outstanding.

The Administrative Court refused permission after an oral hearing before Mr CMG Ockelton, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge, on 17 May 2012. Ouseley J had earlier considered the matter on the papers, and Pitchford LJ also found no arguable basis for judicial review. A renewed application was considered by the Court of Appeal, including Lewison LJ’s written reasons. The central issue was whether judicial review provided a basis for revisiting the possession proceedings and related disputes.

Application refused.

1. Landlord and tenant disputes and challenges to possession proceedings fall within the County Court’s jurisdiction. Judicial review is not an appeal from the County Court. It is a residual means of supervising the County Court where judicial intervention is arguably necessary.
2. Parliament has provided an adequate system for reviewing the merits of decisions made by district judges. It is therefore inappropriate for the High Court to undertake a further merits review. A bare assertion that the County Court acted without jurisdiction, unsupported by legal or factual particulars, does not establish an arguable ground.
3. The appellant’s grievances concerning the tenancy, eviction, treatment of her mother, alleged property damage and outstanding counterclaim were matters for the County Court. The Court of Appeal made no determination on their merits.
4. Agreeing with Lewison LJ’s written reasons, Pill LJ held that a valid monetary counterclaim did not affect the landlord’s entitlement to possession following service of a section 21 notice. The counterclaim did not provide a basis for judicial review.
5. There was no real prospect that relief would be granted on further consideration. The renewed application was refused.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): On 30 January 2013, Pill LJ refused the renewed application for permission to apply for judicial review in [2013] EWCA Civ 207.
2. High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division, Administrative Court: Mr CMG Ockelton, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge, refused permission after an oral hearing on 17 May 2012.
3. Earlier procedural history: Ouseley J considered the matter on the papers. Pitchford LJ made an order on 31 May 2012 and found no arguable basis for judicial review. Permission to appeal against possession orders made in October 2011 and January 2012 was also refused.